The court emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and modifies the sentence for justice based on the lengthy legal process involved.

Judgment

23/07/2025

1. By way of filing the instant Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 /401 of Cr.P.C., challenge has been made to the judgment dated 03.04.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Appeal No.10/2004, whereby the learned appellate court dismissed the judgment dated 24.02.1998 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Regular Criminal Case No.131/1995 and convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and sentencing him to undergo six months’ simple imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

2. Bereft of elaborate details, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant criminal revision are that on 26.11.1994 the Food Inspector Laxmichand Jain went to Kambeshwar Kirana Store. He inspected the store and got suspicious about red chili powder kept at the store. Upon suspicion, the food inspector collected 600 gms. red chili powder from the petitioner for testing on payment of Rs.19/- to the petitioner. Thereafter, at the same time, a notice on form No.6 was given to the petitioner regarding sample collection of red chili powder. After following due procedure, the sample was tested and the same was found to be adulterated. Upon which, a complaint was presented against the petitioner after obtaining prosecution sanction.

3. The Learned Magistrate framed charge against the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act and upon denial of guilt by him, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, the prosecution in order to prove the offence, examined five witnesses and exhibited various documents. The accused, upon being confronted with the prosecution allegations, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., denied the allegations and claimed to be innocent. In defence, two witnesses were examined. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial court convicted and sentenced the petitioner for the offence under Section 7 /16 of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act vide judgment dated 24.02.1998. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction, he preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the learned appellate court vide judgment dated

03.04.2006. Hence, this revision petition is filed before this court.

4. After arguing the case on merits to some extent, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he will not assail conviction of the petitioner and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentence awarded by the trial court. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 1994. The petitioner was not having any criminal antecedents and it was the first criminal case registered against him. No adverse remark has been passed over his conduct except the impugned judgment. The petitioner has already suffered agony of protracted trial of 31 years. The petitioner has remained in custody for a period of about 18 days out of total sentence of six months’ S.I. With these submissions, learned counsel prays that by taking a lenient view, the sentence awarded to the petitioner may be reduced to the period already undergone. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has, of course, been able to defend the case on merits. However, it was the first criminal case registered against him and he had no criminal antecedents as well as the fact that he has remained behind the bars for some time after passing of the judgment in appeal.

6. Since the revision petition ag